1. As the issues involved in all the writ petitions in hand are similar, these shall stand disposed of vide this common judgment. 2. The facts be noticed as under: For the purpose of making selection to the various gazetted services in the State of J&K, applications were invited by the J&K Public Service Commis­sion (here-in-after called the Commission), vide its notification dated 30th of December, 2008, from all eligible candidates for appearing in the J&K Combined Competitive Examination, 2009. After the declaration of the result of preliminary examination, all those candidates who were declared successful, had to apply afresh for the main examination in pursuance to the notification issued by the Commission in this regard on 17th of September, 2009. The result of the main examination was declared vide notification dated 30th of September, 2010, and all those candidates whose Roll Nos., appeared in the said notification, were held to be eligible to appear in the interview. The petitioners could not make the grade on the basis of short listing process undertaken by the Commission in issuing the said notifica­tion. It is this notification, which is being questioned in the present peti­tions. Following contentions have been raised by the petitioners:- a/That Rule 7 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules of 2005), has not been complied with while calling the candidates for interview in terms of the impugned notification. Much stress in this regard has been laid on Sub Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules aforementioned. b/That the candidates belonging to the reserved categories who have secured more marks and were fully eligible and entitled to be called for interview in the open merit category, have been called for interview in the reserved categories to which they belong. c/That the standard has been relaxed for calling for interview those candidates of reserved categories who otherwise should have been considered in the open merit category as their merit was higher than some of the candidates who had appeared in open merit category; d/That the relaxation has been granted by lowering the criteria in order to accommodate the candidates who had opted for Urdu as an optional subject. On the other hand, in the objections filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the writ petitions are premature as the selection process is still underway. On the other hand, in the objections filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the writ petitions are premature as the selection process is still underway. The assertion of the petitioners regarding application of Rule 7 of the Rules of 2005, at this stage, is uncalled for. The said Rule contemplates of select list to be prepared in order of merit which includes the marks obtained in the main examination as also in the interview. There is no provision under the Rules of 2005 to apply the reservation policy at every stage of the examination which is to be conducted for making selection. It is only to be applied when the select list is issued. It is stated that in terms of Rule 8(4) of SRO 387, the candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, as may be fixed by the Commission, would be summoned for interview. Adopting this principle, a uniform cut-off was adopted which was fixed as 46.89 and accordingly, 1194 candi­dates were short-listed for being called for interview. This was preceded by a report of the examination Monitoring Committee constituted in 12th meeting of the Commission held on 8th of September, 2010. The said Committee consisted of three members. The recommendations of the Com­mittee were accepted by the Commission. On the basis of overall merit position of the candidates in different categories, following figures were reflected:- In the Open merit category, 675 candidates were required to be called for the interview. Similarly, in RBA category, 240 candidates, in SC category 93, in ST category 120, ALC category 42 and in OSC category 24 candidates have been called for the interview. On the basis of the cut off it was found that the number of candidates available in SC and ST categories was falling short. Out of 93 candidates to be called for the interview from SC category, only 85 had made the grade and out of 120 candidates required to be called for the interview in ST category, only 65 had made the grade as per the cut off. As a result of this and in order to ensure participation of candidates from these two catego­ries, standard in respect of these two categories was lowered, which is indicated as below: - i. SC 43.846 ii. As a result of this and in order to ensure participation of candidates from these two catego­ries, standard in respect of these two categories was lowered, which is indicated as below: - i. SC 43.846 ii. ST 43.2307 In order to avoid disadvantage to any of the candidate from reserved category possessing higher merit than the last candidate in open category, such candidates were called over and above the ratio of 1:3 as an exception. In this respect 3 candidates from RBA, 8 from ALC and 28 from OSC' category were called for interview over and above the ratio of 1:3. What is being contended is that the candidates have been called for interview category wise taking into consideration the aforesaid ratio. This was done only to ensure that the number of candidates in the reserved category do not suffer a disadvantage if the uniform cut off was maintained. The question of considering the candidates from reserved category who come in the open merit category on the basis of their merit would be considered at the time of preparing the select list i.e. after conclusion of the process of interview. It is stated that, at this stage, the rules governing the field, do not provide that a reserved category candidate who figures in the cut off as fixed by the Commission is required to be considered in the Open merit. What is being ensured is that while selection process is on, it has to be seen that sufficient number of candidates from reserved categories are available so as to satisfy the requirement of Reservation policy at the time of selection. The other contention raised is that lowering the qualifying marks in General English has been done to help the students who had opted Urdu as their Optional Subject. The stand reflects that while relaxing the qualifying marks in General English benefit has been accorded to all the candidates, looking to over all perspective of making selection under rules. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court to indicate that this benefit was accorded to the candidates who have offered Urdu as their Optional Subject. The benefit has been given to all the candidates who have opted for other optional subjects also. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court to indicate that this benefit was accorded to the candidates who have offered Urdu as their Optional Subject. The benefit has been given to all the candidates who have opted for other optional subjects also. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The present petitions have been filed by the candidates who belong to reserved categories and claim that the method adopted by the respondent-Commis­sion, in not calling them for the interview, has violated the reservation rules. 5. Reservation of posts for disadvantageous class of people is provided by reasons of Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution. No citizen can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions of Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions. It is also provided in the scheme of reservation that vacancies are not provided by way of charity but based upon their merit in each category. What is ensured by rules of reservation is that, candidates belonging to reserved categories should not be ignored while making selection. It has to be ensured that depending upon the ratio of reservation provided by the rules, none of the candidates is left out from the said category by providing the uniform cut off which has the consequence of excluding the candidates belonging to the reserved categories. Sufficient number of candidates should be available, without compro­mising with the merit so that at the time of selection the quota reserved for them is fulfilled. 6. It is the boundened duty of the selection authority to ensure that posts earmarked for the reserved category candidates are filled up from those categories and while doing so it has to be ensured that without compromising with the merit, all the eligible candidates in the said category are accorded consideration in the matter of selection. The Commission is bound to conduct the examination in terms of the Rules framed by it. While conducting the examination in a fair and transpar­ent method, it is free to evolve procedure for conduct of the examination. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its discretion. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary, the Court would not ordinarily, interfere therewith. While conducting the examination in a fair and transpar­ent method, it is free to evolve procedure for conduct of the examination. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its discretion. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary, the Court would not ordinarily, interfere therewith. While making selection of the candidates, eye has to be kept that while providing uniform cut off the candidates of the reserved categories do not get excluded. In that eventuality the standard can be lowered in order to ensure compliance of the reservation policy. 7. To examine these principles in the present case, what is being contended is that the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, who have secured more marks, were entitled to be called for the interview in the Open Merit Category, but have been called in the reserved categories, to which they belong to. What is being stated is that after fixing the cut off for calling the candidates for the interview, all those candidates from the reserved categories, who come within the cut off were required to be called for the interview in the Open Merit category, implying thereby that the left over candidates in the reserved category were required to be called for the interview, which would have given right to the petitioners to be considered for selection. 8. Implicit in such argument is that the policy of reservation has to be applied at every step during the selection process. To say it candidly, what is being contended is that reservation has to be recognized at every stage. In order to countenance their claim, reliance has been placed on Rule 7 of the Reservation Rules of 2005. Before adverting to the contention, it is important to reproduce rule 7 as under: - "7. Preparation of the Select List. - (I) The selection authority shall draw up, in order of merit, a consolidated list of all the eligible candidates irrespective of class to which they belong. The list shall show classification of the candidates category wise. (2) The selection authority shall then prepare from out of the first list, a second list containing the names of candidates equal in number to the total number of un-reserved vacancies to be filled up, arranging them in order of merit, commencing with the first name in the first list (hereinafter called second list). (2) The selection authority shall then prepare from out of the first list, a second list containing the names of candidates equal in number to the total number of un-reserved vacancies to be filled up, arranging them in order of merit, commencing with the first name in the first list (hereinafter called second list). If there are no reserved vacancies, then the second list shall constitute the select list subject only to the provisions of sub-rule (6) and (7). (3) If there are reserved vacancies as well, the selection authority shall next prepare from out of the portion of the first list remaining after excluding the portion corresponding to the second list, a third list containing the names separately of as many candidates, from each of the categories, as the number of vacancies respectively reserved for them arranging the candi­dates from each category in order of their interse merit (hereinafter called third list). The said third list added to the said second list shall in such case constitute the select list, subject only to the provisions of sub-rule (6) and sub-rule (7). (4) If in the case of any of the aforesaid categories, the number of candidates belonging to such category in the third list falls short of the number of vacancies reserved for it and subject to the section 5 of the Act, the remain­ing vacancies reserved for such category shall be treated as un-reserved and the selection authority shall prepare a fourth list containing the names of the candidates equal in number to remaining vacancies arranged in order of merit from out of the portion of the first list remaining after excluding the portion corresponding to the second list and the third (hereinafter called fourth list). The fourth list addedup to the second and third list shall in that event constitute the select list subject only to the provisions of sub-rule (6) and sub-rule (7). (5) If, there are reserved vacancies alone against which selection is to be made, the selection authority shall invite applications from the members belonging only to that class for whom the said vacancies are meant. (5) If, there are reserved vacancies alone against which selection is to be made, the selection authority shall invite applications from the members belonging only to that class for whom the said vacancies are meant. It shall then draw up a list of the candidates in order of merit, out of which shall be prepared another list containing names of the candidates equal in number to the number of the reserved vacancies arranged in order of merit commencing from the first name in the initial list mentioned above. The list so prepared shall constitute the select list for these reserved vacancies subject only to the provisions of sub-rule (6) and sub-rule (7). (6) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in sub-rules (1) to (5), the selection authority shall provide horizontal reservation to the extent specified under rule 4 to the candidates falling under the categories ex-servicemen and physically challenged persons while preparing the roster under the said sub-rules. (7) The list as finally settled by conforming to sub-rule (1) to (5) above shall constitute the list of candidates finally selected for appointment to any particular service, class, category or grade, as the case may be, for which such selection is made at a time. (8) For purposes of services to which Combined Competitive Examination is conducted, the reserved category candidates if selected against open merit vacancies may also be considered for allotment of services allocable to their respective category as per their inter-se-merit/own preference and the resultant left over vacancies in the services in open merit shall be allotted to those reserved category candidates only, as per merit-cum-pref­erence, against whose vacancies the reserved category candidates qualify­ing in the open merit are considered. Provided that physically challenged candidates shall be considered for selection in the services and against the posts identified for their respective categories in terms of Government Order No. 62-SW of 2001 dated 13.03.2001 and in accordance with their merit-cum-preference, if otherwise found suitable for selection." 9. Provided that physically challenged candidates shall be considered for selection in the services and against the posts identified for their respective categories in terms of Government Order No. 62-SW of 2001 dated 13.03.2001 and in accordance with their merit-cum-preference, if otherwise found suitable for selection." 9. A conjoint reading of Rule 7 contemplates that the selection authority is required to draw, in order of merit, a consolidated list of all the eligible candidates, irrespective of class to which they belong, which envisages four types of lists, viz.:- (a) List containing the names of the candidates equal in number of vacancies available purely on the basis of the merit; (b) In case of reserved vacancies, it shall process a list of candidates belonging to the reserved category from the L 1 list, in order of their merit; (c) In case the number of candidates belonging to such reserved category falls short of the vacancies reserved for it, the remaining vacancies in such reserved category shall be treated as un-reserved and the selection authority shall prepare fourth list containing the names of the candidates equal in number to remaining vacancies. Sub-Rule 7 provides that the list settled by conforming to sub-rules 1 to 5, shall finally constitute the list of the candidates selected for appointment to any particular service. Sub-Rule 8 provides that candidates belonging to the reserved category, if selected against the Open Merit category, may also be considered for allotment of services allocable to their respective category as per their inter-se-merit/own preference. The operation of the Rules, as clearly emerges from the aforementioned discussion, comes into play only after a select list, based upon merit, is prepared. To further countenance this issue, reference is required to be made to SRO 387 dated 1st of December, 2008, which provides the rules for conduct of the examination. Rule 10 of the aforementioned SRO provides preparation of merit list which consists of marks obtained by a candidate in the main examination as well as in the interview, arranged in order of merit. The candidates would be allotted to various services keeping in view their inter-se-merit and preference and posts. Rule 10 of the aforementioned SRO provides preparation of merit list which consists of marks obtained by a candidate in the main examination as well as in the interview, arranged in order of merit. The candidates would be allotted to various services keeping in view their inter-se-merit and preference and posts. It also provides that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, though not qualifying by the standard prescribed by the Commission, may be declared suitable for appointment thereto by reduced standards with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency in administration and recommended for appointment to vacancies re­served for members of such class in that service. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it clearly reveals that Rule 7 will come into operation after the select list is drawn in order of merit obtained by the candidates both in written examination and the interview. It does not contemplate applying reservation rules either at the time of preliminary examination or at the time the main examination. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners in this behalf that the policy of reservation has to be applied at every stage of selection. 10. Coming to the other contention raised that, respondents were required to shift persons belonging to the reserved categories, on the basis of uniform cut off provided, for calling them for the interview in the Open Merit category, it be seen that while examining the stand of the respondents as also scanning the record produced by the Commission, it is the categoric stand of the respondents that uniform cut off was fixed at 46.89 and accordingly, 1194 candidates were shortlisted for being called for interview. On the basis of this cut off, 675 candidates became eligible to be called for the interview in Open Merit category. Similarly candidates belonging to the reserved categories, as stated herein supra, became eligible and were called for the interview. 11. Looking to the policy of calling the candidates for the interview in the ratio of 1:3, it was decided that only 675 candidates belonging to Open Merit category, 243 candidates belonging to RBA category, 93 from SC category, 120 from ST category, 50 from ALC and 52 from OSC category were required to be called for the interview after short listing. While undertaking this exercise of calling candidates from reserved categories, particularly SC and ST category, it was found that requisite number of candidates were not available in the said categories, as a result of which the standard was lowered in their case to 43.846 and 43.2307, and, resultantly the requisite number of candidates in the said categories were called for the interview after lowering the standard. 12. It cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to any candidate belonging to a reserved category in this behalf as the objective of reservation is to ensure that requisite number of candidates are considered for selection in the reserved category depending upon their ratio. 13. As already stated above, it is for the Commission to determine the manner and method in which the selection is required to be made, keeping an eye on the fact that it should not adopt a procedure in the matter of selection which ultimately achieves the object of denying the right of consideration to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories. 14. The other contention of the petitioners is that those reserved category candidates who have qualified for being called for the interview in the Open Merit Category, should not have been considered in the reserved categories at the time of calling them for the interview, it cannot be presumed at this stage that those candidates of the reserved categories, who have qualified in the Open Merit category for being called for the interview, would ultimately get selected in the Open Merit category after the final select list is prepared. They have to be necessarily called for the interview from the reserved categories, as has been done in this case. 15. The manner and method of selection, without compromising with the merit, is the sole object of the constitutional scheme in providing employment as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. 16. After the conclusion of the main examination, the candidates belonging to various categories have been grouped separately for the purposes of calling them for the interview and where it has been felt that some of the category candidates do not come within the cut off zone, in their case standards have been lowered to ensure participation of all those candidates belonging to reserved categories, in order to achieve the object of reservation. The candidates have been called for the interview, strictly in accordance with their merit. 17. The grievance of the petitioners even otherwise cannot sustain, as, the number of intercepting candidates is large, as is reflected from the chart produced by the respondents. The chances of the petitioners for being called for the interview are remote. What is being contended is that even if the argument of the petitioners is conceded that persons, who qualify to be called for the interview in the open merit category was adhered to, the left out candidates from the reserved categories were ' required to be called for the interview, even then the petitioners may not be in a position to be called for the interview. However, I do not need to enter into this argument as the selection process has yet to be concluded and petitioners can challenge the same if so advised. 18. What clearly emerges from the aforementioned discussion is that requisite number of candidates has been considered in the reserved categories at the stage of interview. I am fortified in taking this view by a judgment of Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and ors, reported as (2009) 5 SCC 1 , where it has been held as under: - "The Constitution of India lays down provisions both for protective dis­crimination as also affirmative action. Reservation of posts for the disadvantaged class of people as also seats in educational institutions are provided for by reason of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reservation made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes, however, is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions contained in Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions. The appellant Commission is bound to conduct examination for appoint­ment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed by the State. It is free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the Constitu­tional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. It is free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the Constitu­tional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The provis­ions for holding the preliminary examination were for the purpose of maintaining a basic standard. How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candi­dates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of an earlier decision of the High Court. Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision is not in question having attained finality. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefore. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair." 19. Regarding the other contention raised by the petitioners that relaxation has been granted in the qualifying marks as a result of which the candidates, who had opted Urdu as their optional subject, have been called for the interview in large number. 20. The relaxation has been granted uniformly and this benefit has been given to the candidates of all the categories, who had not opted Urdu as their optional subject. No material has been placed on records to suggest that as a result of such relaxation, other candidates were not given the benefit. What has weighed with the respondents in relaxing the qualifying marks is an issue which is required to be determined by them in terms of the scheme provided for conducting the examina­tion. Unless there is a manifest error or action tainted with malice, this Court has no jurisdiction to enter in that area. 21. There is another aspect of the matter, that present writ petitions are not maintainable at this stage. 22. Unless there is a manifest error or action tainted with malice, this Court has no jurisdiction to enter in that area. 21. There is another aspect of the matter, that present writ petitions are not maintainable at this stage. 22. No other contention has been raised by the petitioners. 23. It is made clear that whatever emerges after the select list is issued, can still be questioned by the petitioners. 24. These petitions are, as such, misconceived and are, accordingly dismissed along with connected CMPs. 25. Respondents are directed to proceed with the selection process.